February 20, 2009

52 comments:

It's always about the Jews. Besides, no one knew what a Neo-Conservative was until after 9/11. Then the Left glommed onto it because it's so nefarious in it's usage and then it came to become associated with being about Conservative Jews and how it relates to American/Israeli foreign policies.

All I see is one snarky thing after another. Can you make a decent living at a newspaper doing that?"

Ask Maureen Dowd.

I had the same reaction. This is an article? Writing "uh-huh" and "sure" after quotes is supposed to pass as opinion or commentary or journalism? Maybe it would work on a blog (though I'm sure it would be meaner and better)— but this is the Washington Post.

"Neoconservative", between 1981 and 2001, was almost exclusively a term used by anti-Semetic members of the Right to refer to a number of Jewish intellectuals who were Democrats in the 1970s and then joined the Reagan coalition.

Then, members of the anti-Israel left borrowed it from the anti-Semetic right, and it was then cross-applied to anybody who was too "Likudnik" in their attitudes. Eventually, it gets abused into a general term for "anybody who supported the Iraq War".

Now rcocean comes along and tells us that "neoconservative" isn't a code term for "Jewish", because there are non-Jews called "neoconservatives".

Imagine you start with "urban" being used as code word for "black". Then have somebody denounce Obama because he's too "urban". Then have somebody call Rahm Emmanuel "urban" for agreeing with Obama and being too "black" in his attitudes. Then have somebody point out that "urban" is a code word for "black". I'm sure we could then count on rcocean saying "urban" can't be a code word for "black" because Rahm Emmanuel isn't black.

I'm 53 years old. I have lived in 13 different places in the United States, including 2 years in a "ghetto" where I, a white guy was a definite minority. I have owned, at different stages of my life, political philosophies ranging from radical to liberal to libertarian to conservative, where i mostly reside today.

Of all the political "types", I have the hardest time with "liberals" because - to stereotype - they so often are:

Steven said... "Neoconservative", between 1981 and 2001, was almost exclusively a term used by anti-Semetic members of the Right to refer to a number of Jewish intellectuals who were Democrats in the 1970s and then joined the Reagan coalition.

Horse pucky.

Neocon was a word neocons themselves proudly invented and used. In their triumphalist era, 2001-2003, they all but fell over themselves describing how great their ideas were, who their fellow neocons were, and how Bush and the "hero troops" would save Israel, spread democracy all through the Middle East and in other "lands of tyranny". That a new "Pax Americana" was on the verge of being imposed on the Planet, for everyones benefit, by the "Lone Hyperpower". Which would defeat the "Islamofascists" and win what the Neos called "WWIV".

Now, there were plenty of non-Jews involved, and much quibbling can be made about the movements other characteristics, how Straussian, Gramsican, big government, structurally Marxist and Wisonian they were - but two things that there is no argument about is that the the Neocons were opportunists of the first order and they were the 3rd political movement in America to proclaim undying devotion to a foreign country. (The American Communists with the Soviet Union then the German Bund for their Teutonic bethren were the others.)

The amusing thing now is seeing the discredited Neocons, because they are opportunists..now trying to exculpate themselves and find entrance to a new source of power and wealth in DC - denying they ever were Neocons, that there was ever....really a neocon movement, that Jews predominated,...or saying, as rcocean suggested, that yes, there were Neocons, but they were a little pack of harmless scholars and any criticism of them MUST be anti-semetic.

Apparantly Richard Perle put on an opportunistic tour de force that touched on all those elements.

1. There was no such thing as neocons.2. That what others call neoconism was actually mistaken...it was really several distinct conservative threads.3. That he was never a neocon, and any quotes or articles from the past where he writes or talked about being a neocon "are clearly mistaken".4. That people confused about neocons mistake them for being pro-Israel when in fact they were simply pro-American and doing what Israel wanted the US to do was not what happened with them...Just the neocon ideas prepared for Netanyahu and the Likudniks happened to pefectly match what Perle and other "America-Firsters" who really paid no attention to what Israel wanted thought were best for America.5. And anyone calling Perle a neocon was guilty of anti-semetism.

As several people commented who were at the gathering and listened to Perle's confused whitewashing of himself as he pursues fresh opportunities - " Perle put on a pretty amazing show." No one believed him, but he put on a pretty amazing show.

quick Google search turned up a transcripts of a 2004 PBS interview of Perle by Ben Wattenberg. Its title? "Richard Perle: The Making of a Neoconservative." And Perle didn't seem to have much problem with the word back then. Here's a portion of the interview:

Ben Wattenberg: Now, Scoop was surrounded by people who then and certainly now are called neoconservatives. It’s become a fashionable word now thanks to you and your colleagues because you’re all categorized that way. How did that come into your life, that whole school of thought?Richard Perle: Well, I think the term has something to do with the sense that those of us who are now called neo-conservatives were at one time liberals, and in this…Ben Wattenberg: Irving Kristol said a neoconservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality.Richard Perle: Right. And I think that’s a fair description, and I suppose all of us were liberal at one time. I was liberal in high school and a little bit into college. But reality and rigor are important tonics, and if you got into the world of international affairs and you looked with some rigor at what was going on in the world, it was really hard to be liberal and naïve..

The "lessons of Munich" and appeasement instead of doing "surgical war" are constant themes of Neocons:

Back in the day I liked Mayor Koch and despised Bella Abzug. My liking for Koch was not due to my being manipulated by the Jewish MSM, and my dislike for Bella Abzug was not conditioned on my belief that she was an agent of the Zionist conspiracy. My politics and beliefs were more closely aligned with those of Koch than those of Abzug. On whatever issue that exists in American life, you will find a Jew arguing for and against it. Can't a gentile have an opinion on Iraq or, for that matter, any mid East issue that is not based on either philo or anti-semitism? Does anyone really think that Cheney is gullible and easily manipulated?....That said I wish Perle would have had the decency to defend his position. He sounds like a right wing McNamara.

While the term has been overused by some liberals who aren't able to differentiate between the different tribes in the conservative camp, it's a term that had real meaning for a long time before 9/11, and it wasn't a derogatory term in many contexts, like the one linked above.

Joe Klein has made himself quite the figure of controversy over the past few weeks. First, he suggested that Jewish neoconservatives have "divided loyalties;" then he called John McCain desperate for arguing that Barack Obama is willing to lose the Iraq war in order to win the election. Then, a few days ago, he argued that McCain has surrounded himself with "Jewish neoconservatives" who want war with Iran. He's gotten a lot of pushback, including criticism from Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League.

I called Joe with a bunch of questions. He stands by his criticism of Jewish neoconservatives, and explains Iran's nuclear ambitions this way: "Given the level of threats that they've been getting from the United States, and from Israel, it's a logical thing for Iran to want nuclear weapons as a deterrent."

And all this time I thought Rove and Cheney alternately shared the title of prince of darkness in the warm little nests that are the hearts of the loving embracing left, always just so charming in their analysis.

My attention was forfeited after the fifth use of the word neoconservative, in my own view a shibboleth that denotes the speaker a wanker.

This article will be eyed wistfully by an unemployed government worker just prior to burning it in the empty oil drum, to help cook a little squirrel for dinner, the Iraq war now a faded memory.

Once, it defined who he was. Now it meant, what? Nothing. Newspaper to cook his dinner, what little there was. How did this small war obscure the looting of the treasury, the one had been going on since 1930?

Perle is speaking bullshit. He is, folks, I'm telling you. He is.I suppose if you only rely on the MSM and also think the MSM is bullshit, you can think he's not, that it's a plot. But it isn't. The man is speaking bullshit for general public consumption. But in other venues and in other times, it was a different story.

It doesn't matter what side you're on, whether you believe in certain philosophies or not, or how you feel about the policies or politics of Jan.-Jan, 2001-2009, it still matters whether Perle is telling the truth or not. It does.

My favorite long infomercial dude was always Kevin Trudeau. That guy just cracked me up. I don't really count Ron Popeil since he doesn't just sell snake oil. He also sells easy bake ovens. In any case Perle is doing just that. Selling some snake oil. It's what you do. I love the headline though. It does sound like they jacked it from The Onion.

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at Nuremberg

The question was "are you a neo-con" to which he replied "no". the correct reply should have been "neo-cons don't exist". To answer that "he wasn't a neo-con" assumes that there are neo-cons and no he wasn't one of them. answering as he did that "he wasn't" automatically suggests that there indeed are neo-cons.

I know what we can do,let's require all the suspected neocons to wear Yellow Stars of David for easier identification. After all, these are "only stars" just like all the leading actors put on their dressing room doors for easier identification. It is also well known that the Discovery of America was another Jewish plot since Christopher Columbus was an early Neocon smoothly manipulating the Spanish Catholic Monarchs' foreign policy for his personal financial reasons and not for Spain's national interests.Blessings seem to have accidentally happened from that Neocon cabal, but it wasn't fair.

Neocon used to mean one fairly clear thing: Former liberals (many who had been Communists or socialists) who just (hence the neo part)became conservative (the con part of the word).

Now it means so many different things to different groups that it has essentially become devoid of any clear-cut meaning. Given this, how can any one person admit to being part of such an Amorphous blob?

The question was "are you a neo-con" to which he replied "no". the correct reply should have been "neo-cons don't exist". To answer that "he wasn't a neo-con" assumes that there are neo-cons and no he wasn't one of them. answering as he did that "he wasn't" automatically suggests that there indeed are neo-cons.

So, if someone asks me if I'm a unicorn, and I say "no," I'm really saying that unicorns exist?

It is very possible, definitional even, to not be something that doesn't exist.

There is absolutely nothing illogical or contradictory in saying that a thing does not conform to a known concept.

He is thinking, perhaps, that it is nonsensical to say a thing does not conform to an unrealized concept. Thus, it is nonsensical to say that Hdhouse is or is not a qwjibo, because the concept of "qwjibo" does not exist.

But I think I can safely say that hdhouse is not a unicorn, because the concept of "unicorn" is pretty much fully realized. The concept of "unicorn" exists, therefore we are able to say that hdhouse is not, in fact, a unicorn (leaving aside the truth of the statement.)

Think about this for just a minute hdhouse. If you are correct and we cannot say that a thing is or is not something else that doesn't actually exist, how could you ever say something is "pretty?" Does "pretty" exist as its own material object? How could you say something is "ugly?" Or "fair?" Or "evil?" These are all non-existent things. But they do exist as concepts, and thus we can judge the conformity of real, physical things with those concepts, just as we can say that you are not a unicorn.

thanks, reader. This "do neo-cons exist" question is a red herring. Who cares? Perle's all "war? I had nothing to do with that. Signed what? Oh, I didn't read that. The president? I don't think he read anything I wrote or signed or recommended...pay no attention to me, over here, behind the curtain."

If affirmative government set asides begin to be paid out to all unicorns, then unicorns will begin to exist everywhere we look. There may even be some appearing over at Hdhouse's house. Then what will us original unicornians do about the impostercorns?